Posted
by
Soulskill
on Friday February 03, 2012 @03:50PM
from the hitting-the-brakes dept.

superglaze writes "Poland has suspended its ratification process for ACTA, throwing the copyright crackdown into doubt for the whole European Union. ACTA is being handled as a 'mixed agreement' in the EU due to its criminalization clauses, so if a single EU member state (such as Poland) fails to ratify it, it is null and void across the entire union. If that were to happen, at least six of the remaining international signatories would have to ratify ACTA for it to apply anywhere in the world. Outside the EU, only eight countries — including the U.S. — have signed."

It wouldn't be the first time. Remember Yalta? Churchill, Roosevelt, and Stalin all conspired to forget the Poles helped the Allies a lot, and died a lot for their trouble. Katyn Woods massacre was a propaganda coup used by both the Nazis and Soviets in turn.

I'd like to thank my representatives. The problem is, I don't live in Poland or know any Polish... Can someone from there tell me who/where/how to send my thanks and perhaps who to donate a bit of money for next elections? (I feel somewhat betrayed by the far-left candidate I voted for [wikipedia.org], who actually became a minister of culture and one of the first things he did was to act like a good puppet of our RIAA-equivalent. He was the one guy I had hoped to protect my interests against those of multinational capital

Funny thing, there is not one party in Poland that can be trusted currently. Even these with the masks were just trying to cash in on the popularity, but they "woke up" only after massive protests started...

I am Polish and actually, it is only our Prime Minister which is trying to manipulate the public into thinking that acta will not be ratified.

Most of us is pretty sure that it is only a suspension, not complete stop. Polish government has a long history of lying and manipulating us, so they are waiting for the protests to chill out and will push ACTA at other time.

We are now in the process of collecting signatures for a referendum, so we can kill ACTA once and for all. If that will not be enough, it may even be neccessary to remove the government.

right in the 2010 there was a site called drugitupolew.pl (2nd Tupolev - as Polish goverment had two TUpolev airplanes) which was a voting for top 96 unpopular politicians and public figures.(now the site is down)

Just so you know, whether or not this goes ahead in Poland, there is no such thing as killing it once and for all. They are already working on ACTA II. Hell, if you happen to stop ACTA, they'll try to just rename it to something else and pass it that way.

This is a problem endemic to the current copyright laws and the relationship between businesses, governments and individual citizens.

On one side are businesses, generally well funded, that have a vested interest in expanding copyright law in all direction

In the United States, the term "treaty" is used in a more restricted legal sense than in international law. U.S. law distinguishes what it calls treaties from congressional-executive agreements and sole-executive agreements.[1] All three classes are considered treaties under international law; they are distinct only from the perspective of internal United States law.

The fact that France would call it a treaty doesn't have a whole lot to do with whether it ought to be ratified by the Senate under the US Constitution.

To be fair, there's a lot of great American music (I'm American, BTW). However, almost none of it has been made in the last 15-20 years. You should make that law so it doesn't allow any American music from post-1995 on the radio at all.

Jazz music is very popular in Europe from what I read, especially France. It's American in origin, but not exactly new (one source says it became popular there in the 1920s).

It's mainly in the past couple decades that American culture has gone down the tubes.

Plawski knew what he had to do – without the other destroyers Piorun couldn’t hope to face the Bismarck alone. Now that suprise was lost the Battleship was fast enough to keep Piorun out of torpedo range, the Piorun couldn’t stay in contact with her now. She should radio in Bismarck’s latest position and then, for want of another phrase, get the fuck out of Dodge.

They’d all just have to hope that another ship was close enough to make contact with her again before she managed to slip away again – although given the weather and the darkness Plawski realised that was increasingly unlikely.

It was frustrating and may ultimately mean the British missed their opportunity to intercept, but sadly, that was the only sensible option. Anything else was suicide.

Plawski though for a split second then sighed, smiled and gave his orders to his crew:

Poland is better representing its citizens rights on this issue than is my own country (USA). After seeing PIPA/SOPA fallout, I can't believe anyone in the US region of politics would want to attach their name to this. How do how do treaties work anyway? I don't remember having a vote on this.

McCain likely wouldn't have survived long in office. The guy's a geezer, and the additional stress likely would have killed him. Which would have left us with Palin. She'd have signed it in an instant.

Who gave you the impression the R's are for less government? That's not even REMOTELY true. The Republicans are for less of certain kinds of government and absolutely for more of other kinds. The Dems are in the same position, wanting more of some kinds and less of others. The disagreement between the parties is which parts need less and which parts need more.

Technically if there was super-majority opposition to this ""executive agreement" in the congress Obama could be impeached. Unfortunately this technicality can only occur in the fantasy world where elected representatives are not corporate sock puppets.

Impeachment requires a criminal offense. The constitution does not grant congress a general power to remove the president by a supermajority vote. If the claim is that classifying ACTA as an executive agreement is a criminal act, you'd first have to prove that it isn't an executive agreement. That would require a court ruling, not just a supermajority of congress.Of course, I suppose they could try something like what happened with Andrew Johnson, but given the public's opinion of congress right now that wo

ACTA, as it currently stands, in not binding on the U.S., because Congress has not ratified it.

The Executive branch has no Constitutional authority to enforce it as any kind of treaty without ratification by Congress. I know some are "debating" this, but the debate is nothing but BS. The Constitution spells it out pretty clearly.

The Executive branch has no Constitutional authority to enforce it as any kind of treaty without ratification by Congress. I know some are "debating" this, but the debate is nothing but BS. The Constitution spells it out pretty clearly.

Since when does it matter what's spelled out in the constitution? Seems it's been awhile, at least when it's inconvenient to the executive branch.

As SOPA/PIPA revealed, not all the power groups in the US are of one mind about this issue. And the system of "checks and balances" allows for an out in this sort of scenario, when some power groups are willing to fight it out.

The Executive branch has no Constitutional authority to enforce it as any kind of treaty without ratification by Congress.

Ratification of treaties is by the Senate alone, not "by the Congress." If an international agreement is implemented by Congress through the normal legislative process, it is a normal statute law (these are also referred to as "Congressional-executive agreements"); the power to enter into these agreements is limited by Congress' existing enumerated powers, since this is simply an exerci

"Ratification of treaties is by the Senate alone, not "by the Congress.""

Yes, by the Senate. But the Senate is part of Congress. Therefore, since you feel like nitpicking, "not 'by the Congress'" is incorrect.

"If an international agreement is implemented by Congress through the normal legislative process..."

Correct, but completely irrelevant in this case.

"If an international agreement is implemented by the President alone... it is constrained by the same bounds as the President's independent executive authority..."

Exactly. And as a corollary: it is therefore not domestic law. That was my point.

"Only by treaty ratified by a 2/3 vote in the Senate can an international agreement extend beyond the other enumerated powers of Congress and/or the Executive, since only by treaty is a separate, independent Constitutional power of government exercised."

This is very much debatable, since the Constitution does not stipulate which shall have priority, nor has the question ever been unequivocally settled by the Supreme Court. It would be just as valid to claim that the Constitution constrains treati

Only by treaty ratified by [...] the Senate can an international agreement extend beyond the other enumerated powers of Congress and/or the Executive, since only by treaty is a separate, independent Constitutional power of government exercised.

This is very much debatable, since the Constitution does not stipulate which shall have priority, nor has the question ever been unequivocally settled by the Supreme Court. It would be just as valid to claim that the Constitution constrains treaties. Either one is an

"Priority is irrelevant (priority would only become an issue of a purported treaty violated a negative restriction in the Constitution, not if it merely extends beyond the other enumerated powers of the federal government in the Constitution.)"

You must be an attorney. You sure as Hell aren't a Constitutional scholar. Which stands to reason, since today they seem to be almost mutually exclusive categories.

First, priority is very much relevant (not to ACTA, but to the comments you made earlier), because your comments presupposed that treaties had priority over the Constitution. (NOT as in Missouri v. Holland, which dealt specifically with a 10th Amendment issue.)

On the other hand, a Constitutional scholar will point you to any number of histo

You must be an attorney. You sure as Hell aren't a Constitutional scholar.

Closer to the second then the first.

First, priority is very much relevant (not to ACTA, but to the comments you made earlier), because your comments presupposed that treaties had priority over the Constitution. (NOT as in Missouri v. Holland, which dealt specifically with a 10th Amendment issue.)

No, they didn't. You need to learn to read. The comment I made was that the treaty power, as an enumerated power, isn't restricted to action

Nor has Canada. Harper wired it in to his omnibus "tough on crime" legislation to try to ram it through with a bunch of other unsavoury clauses. He may have done so with his majority Parliament, but he doesn't Rule the Senate (yet!)

The senate review on the acceptability and legality of the whole package of laws is now in doubt because the Senate is where Canada has it's "due process" to at least try to ratify and pre-evaluate new legislation in light of existing/case law and the Charter of Rights.

Has anyone else considered that the politicos in the U.S. aren't as stupid as we're making them out to be?

Perhaps they've pulled this ACTA thing together because they KNOW they it will never get fully ratified, and a bunch of this crazy copyright stuff is merely to get the RIAA/MPAA off their back? "Sorry! We did our best, looks like you'll have to compete in the open market..." Then they've fulfilled their duties to the companies they know are dying, and actually positioned themselves to buddy up to the o

No, I don't think it's a big sham by politicians. For many of them, their campaigns (and wealth) relies on RIAA/MPAA and other SOPA/PIPA/ACTA supporters contributions. If it was a ploy to take Hollywood money, I think Hollywood would have figured it out before now. We're at a tipping point in World / US history- change is coming (and not the false Change of Obama). What we are observing is people, and politicians as the people's proxy, saying enough is enough.

It has almost worked. But they did not predict the outcry in EU. They thought they have bought them, and if this ACTA was signed some 3 months ago for example, they could actually have succeed. Not anymore. We, the people, we had it enough. Our patient is over. Remember, remember......

...and reason was also that agreement is too complex to be signed away so easily, so they have to discuss it first too. I highly doubt that they will hear nothing what happen in Poland and other countries with public opinion. This is country where government actually listens to people, using Internet extensively to collect comments about proposed laws.This is also a land where they elect their government using Internet and Skype was also started there.

According to reports, Tusk said on Friday that his government had made insufficient consultations before signing the agreement in late January, and it was necessary to ensure it was entirely safe for Polish citizens.

All they have to do is do some consultations (like on C-32 in Canada, now known as C-11) and totally ignore them (like C-11 in Canada) and then pass it anyway (with some bogus excuse).

Make sure when you get to get out on February 11. Let this strengthen your resolve. Massive outcries DO work. In order to make suspension into cancellation, this issue needs to stay 'alive'.

Currently there is an enormous backlash against ACTA in Poland. If the ratification voting were held today, it would likely be rejected. But suspending means trying to push it later (or via EU channels) when it becomes forgotten. Now is the time for other EU citizens to stand up when it is still hot.
Sadly, corporate lobbying is so strong nowadays that fighting it requires almost constant effort.

Why is it said here that ACTA needs to be signed by 6 countries to apply worldwide? Sovereign nations are usualy not bound by international treaties they have not signed. There are a few exceptions but it would be surprising that they include ACTA.

Considering that Guy Fawkes and the whole incident is over 400 years old I would find it offensive if any licensing was required anywhere.

To copyright *that* or trademark it is completely ridiculous. Is that all it takes? Make a movie that uses a mask, out of context, about a guy that escaped disemboweling by hanging himself 400 years ago, and you get copyrights and trademarks over it?

The mask as it is used everywhere has nothing to do with the real Guy Fawkes. It was designed for the comic V for Vendetta by DC

I wouldn't say it has nothing to do with the real Fawkes. It was designed for the comic book character, yes, and is basically a pretty featureless grinning face with a mustache, but is somewhat similar to pictures of Fawkes that a quick google search will find.

Sources in Washington report the extraordinary rendition of 15 Polish politicians for copyright violation from the Parliament Building of the European Union early today. Acting on secret orders from the MPAA and RIAA, spokesmutants claimed yet another victory in the War Against Piracy and Terrorism. The sources added, an additional 4 British journalists were also captured when they pointed out that it was a British copyright that was infringed upon, not an American copyright. The journalists are said to be 'settling in quite nicely' at Guantanamo Bay's Camp X-Ray...

True, but it's a silly symbol. And those who use the symbol seem to be oblivious to the fact that it makes them look foolish and is undermining their cause. I just think it's a big bizarre is all. Plus there's the whole Anonymous attachment to that symbol which further adds to the ridiculousness. (at least with Anonymous when they use that symbol it usually means "don't take us seriously, we're just here for the lulz")

I'm having a hard time understanding why Guy Fawkes was a loser. Was it solely because he failed or because he broke under torture?

I'm not sure if most people associate it with that movie, in which case they are associating it with the plight of the character which is wholly different than that of the real Guy Fawkes.

He was a hero to some people. That would have depended on your religion and philosophy at the time. He was quite defiant and resolute but did ultimately break under torture. That is kind of hard to hold against him as every man breaks.

I don't find the symbolism strange because of Guy Fawkes being a loser or a hero, just that Guy Fawkes was never fighting for any noble cause, or the suffering of the people per se, but for Catholicism. That's it. I don't find that very impressive and quite unsuitable to what he is being used as a symbol for today.

At the time, fighting for Catholicism was probably considered noble by many people. Remember, England had two big uprisings during Henry VIII's time over his forcing of Protestantism on the people, and along with that seizing the monasteries and churches and making them Crown property. These uprisings were put down brutally, but the people participating were regular common people (with a few nobility); they obviously liked their Catholicism for whatever reason. They really believed you had to talk to a p

I don't find the symbolism strange because of Guy Fawkes being a loser or a hero, just that Guy Fawkes was never fighting for any noble cause, or the suffering of the people per se, but for Catholicism. That's it. I don't find that very impressive and quite unsuitable to what he is being used as a symbol for today.

I'd have to disagree with you on that one. You can certainly take the view that he was "fighting for Catholicism". Fighting for any kind of religion is not something I'd be particularly interested in. I however would take the view that he was fighting against repression and persecution. Europe had all sorts of religious fun after the Reformation. In France, Spain and Italy, Catholics murdered Protestants. In the various germanic countries, they killed each other and eventually learned to live with each oth

Furthermore with every mask bought and used by anyone some big, fat, ACTA-pushing corp earns $$$. Yes, I also see this ridiculous. Should we look for another symbol or is it too much effort to do this ?

The whole thing stinks. Our whole political class was involved in an attempt to pass it as quietly as possible and ram this feudal law down our throats. Those 15 crooks were involved in this scam but - as they're formally an opposition - they weren't directly responsible for passing ACTA, so they could switch sides at any time and they did it as soon as they saw opportunity in it. Neverthless I'm happy to see they've helped raising (bad) publicity about ACTA fiasco with those masks. I'm definitely NOT happy with Tusk who ordered signing this crap despite huge protests and I'm not confident he really means to not ratify this - in my opinion he is a pathological liar. Just one day earlier one of his stooges (M. Dowgielewicz) acknowledged that they (government) are determined to ratify it despite of protests. In their (polish govt) opinion protests are "overreaction of manipulated young people". Geez. What a bunch of fucks (I told you they're all pathological liars).

Our media also didn't help much - media lied at first. Only later, as more and more known and respected persons took side of protesters - media acknowledged some of their concerns - but all reports in our mainstream media seems to be watered down and limited to internet/copyright issues. Not a single word about generic drugs or patented GMO crops - whole debate is as limited as possible.

And there is another thing that stinks even more than all things above combined. In the wake of these protests we had major hiccup in our parliament and reps in one of commision voted and issued a recommendation to suspend ratification process and start public consultations about ACTA. Next day some lady from US embassy started calling those representatives and asking why did they pass this and why party leaders did not enforce 'party discipline' to vote this recommendation down. While previous things did not impress me too much (as I'm used to our crappy political class), the last one made me really furious. If someone is still in doubt who is ruling my country - not President nor Prime Minister - It's some obscure lady from US embassy. (?!?) Few months ago (presumeably) the same lady in meetings of agriculture commision was pushing to legalize patented GMOs in my country ! It seems that we've got rid of Soviets but we haven't got our independence either. Our politicians stopped taking orders from Mockba but started taking orders from Washington and Brussels.

Last but not least I would thank everyone who attended anti-ACTA rallies regardless of cold weather we currently have. I was only on one of these and I feel I did too little. Thank you - all of you who made our lovely government reconsidering (or at least pretending to reconsider) this decision. My feeling is that we should not stop here. Every term our elected officials show disregard for us and do things that directly violate their fiduciary duties (at expense of citizens of course). I think that now as we've scored first meaningful success, we should go further and demand as many elements of direct democracy as possible. Technical means to cheaply perform referendums are in place, it's just politicians that are dragging their feet.